Search results

When you say "all of those outside our Church are hellbound--and we don't have to defend anything we say using Scripture or reason, you just have to dumbly follow", that's "cutthroat".

Yeah, Paul's tradition, as explained, seems to just be Scripture-based practical halachot--the "tradition" he revisits in the epistle to the Thessalonians is "whoever does not work does not eat", and this is traceable to Genesis 3, where God says "by the sweat of your brow you will eat food"...

Well, actually, Jesus is explicit, so "do not add or remove" (Deut 4:2) : He said many would come to Him, and say "Lord, Lord", and try to claim rightness with Him due to supernatural acts they had done, but He will say "No, you do not practice righteousness." So, how can we do God's will for...

It's just a commentary on what you said--you claimed I thought Christianity was "cut throat", and I remarked that, rather, you all are the ones who are rather "cut throat".

Yeah, Paul explains one of his oral traditions to the Thessalonians : "you know our tradition when we were with you was anyone who didn't work didn't eat". This is Genesis 3, where God says, "From the sweat of your brow, you will eat food" : Paul's "traditions" are similar, then, to the Jews'...

Yeah, and I already know God--and I'm not relying on doing miracles or wonders. Jesus's issue, here, is they are not righteous, or seeking after righteousness--they think service to God for God's glory, or glorifying God, or Christianity, consists in doing miracles and other supernatural acts...

1. Yes, you said to obey your Church, and you basically represent your Church, so you're saying to submit to your word, because it is the word of your Church. 2. I agree--but you guys really are cut throat (perhaps not as much after Vatican II), whereas we've been granting that there are actual...

In the Epistle to the Romans, for instance, Paul didn't tell the Roman Jewish believers "OBEY WHAT I TELL YOU!", he reasoned with them--he preempted their Jewish, Scripture-based objections to his Gospel, and answered those arguments using Scripture and reason. Jesus did the same--He engaged...

Peter unknowingly taught and lived contrary to the ultimate reality / truth of the Gospel--as Paul says, "My conscience is clear, but I am not thereby acquitted, for it is the Lord [the Word of God] Who judges me." So, also, Peter's conscience was clear, and we see this dynamic permitted in...

"Deepest sympathies"? As you say, "keep it up--you're letting everyone know what you're made of"! LOL! You're so obviously in the wrong, and you're uninterested in that fact--you care only about pretending you are right! Your behavior does not differ from the behavior of the Catholics you...

If even Peter taught error (ie, he taught that only Jews could be saved, and that they all had to serve God by means of the Law--up until the corrective vision in Acts 10), who are you to think you have to be 100% correct about everything you assert just because you have the Holy Spirit? Humble...

Funny, no one on your side of the debate has bothered to "debunk" the claims; they just emptily object, like they do everything else, completely impotent to prove anything about anything.

Avail yourself of the information in the video presentation before responding to it (Proverbs 18:13).

What is the "error"? That Peter didn't know Gentiles could be saved? If he knew Gentiles could be saved, why were they all astonished when Cornelius received the Spirit? Why was it the first time the Jewish believers who confronted Peter when he got back to Jerusalem (after having gone to...

You didn't read carefully : I said Peter didn't know Gentiles could be saved IN ACTS 10, WHEN HE WENT TO CORNELIUS. It is obvious that he knew Gentiles could be saved by Acts 15--I never would argue to the contrary, since he received that revelation in Acts 10, and the number 10 precedes 15 ...

All I said was it is clear to me that Christ meant Peter was the rock He would build His Church on, and I gave my reasons for believing that--and I still believe it, because your empty objections are irrelevant and laughable!

Ok we disagree.

I'm not arguing about who got there first, I'm saying John intentionally put himself BEHIND Peter on that occasion AND on the occasion at the end of the Gospel, and that is in addition to the fact that it was Peter who walked on the water with Jesus; when Peter said, "I'm going fishing", after...

This I actually arrived at on my own. Actually, it was, apparently, a "wild west" back then, and there was no absolute "Church teaching", because, apparently, the Jewish believers had some sort of expectation of Peter, and Peter was afraid of them, so he was trying to satisfy their...

I don't have to deny the obvious. John got to the tomb first, but let Peter go in first, and, at the end of the Gospel, John put himself BEHIND Peter and Jesus. Peter was called the rock, and on the rock, He built His church : Peter preached at Pentecost, and Peter first went to the Gentiles...